USA Politics
- Thread starter Genghis Khan
- Start date
Invader
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I think what he means is:
"Republicans are ahead of the Democrats by 4%. People say this is because of a mistake that Obama made regarding his religion. How disappointing."
I have to say, though, I'm disliking Palin more and more each day.
I think what he means is:
"Republicans are ahead of the Democrats by 4%. People say this is because of a mistake that Obama made regarding his religion. How disappointing."
I have to say, though, I'm disliking Palin more and more each day.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I saw a red/blue map yesterday, I think it was news week, that had Obama at 273 electoral votes (leaving McCain at 189, if I remember correctly). That is taking into account leaning states, because there are a fair number that are just too close to call yet.
Ha, reading that back to myself, I feel like CNN the night that Gore won the election. Obviously, it is too early to tell what will happen, but it is also clear that there are states that are already taken.
Here is a link to Slate's map projection:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195956/
Look at FL, a purple state. There are 7 toss-up states listed, but imagine how FL loves being in the middle of it all over again.
I saw a red/blue map yesterday, I think it was news week, that had Obama at 273 electoral votes (leaving McCain at 189, if I remember correctly). That is taking into account leaning states, because there are a fair number that are just too close to call yet.
Ha, reading that back to myself, I feel like CNN the night that Gore won the election. Obviously, it is too early to tell what will happen, but it is also clear that there are states that are already taken.
Here is a link to Slate's map projection:
http://www.slate.com/id/2195956/
Look at FL, a purple state. There are 7 toss-up states listed, but imagine how FL loves being in the middle of it all over again.
thanks Invader
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Republicans aren't ahead for very long, yet. Plus recent state polls (www.electoral-vote.com, the best place to get your current prediction) are about 283 for Obama.
But after the GOP bounce evens out...we'll see. It hasn't hit the fan till the "debates".
Republicans aren't ahead for very long, yet. Plus recent state polls (www.electoral-vote.com, the best place to get your current prediction) are about 283 for Obama.
But after the GOP bounce evens out...we'll see. It hasn't hit the fan till the "debates".
Onhell
Infinite Dreamer
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
As the Gore election taught us, who gives a rat's ass if the Republicans are ahead in polls (popularity), when it is the electoral votes that matter which is where Obama is ahead, will likely stay ahead and thus win even if the Reps get the popular vote.
As the Gore election taught us, who gives a rat's ass if the Republicans are ahead in polls (popularity), when it is the electoral votes that matter which is where Obama is ahead, will likely stay ahead and thus win even if the Reps get the popular vote.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
If you want to be president, make sure at least 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices vote for your party?
If you want to be president, make sure at least 5 of 9 Supreme Court Justices vote for your party?
____no5
Free Man
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
yes at least
it was a bad moment for US -I was not believing that I was withnessing that thing happening
and Gore's calm attitude to accept Court's desision impressed me deeply
-not to mention how I got wowed when I discovered that film Gore made
-he would never have it made if he was winning the elections
so I was taught that in any case we bring our message to the world -and try to change it a little bit
yes at leastit was a bad moment for US -I was not believing that I was withnessing that thing happening
and Gore's calm attitude to accept Court's desision impressed me deeply
-not to mention how I got wowed when I discovered that film Gore made
-he would never have it made if he was winning the elections
so I was taught that in any case we bring our message to the world -and try to change it a little bit
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
It's time for an economy talk, folks.
As many people who watch the markets may know, 2 days ago two MAJOR banks failed. Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, filed for bankruptcy; Merrill-Lynch, another large investment bank, was sold to the Bank of America who takes on all its assets and bad debts. This brings the total to four failed medium-to-major banks (3 of which have been major) in the credit crunch. However, it gets more interesting. The US Government has issued huge bailouts to several companies (the Bush Administration refuses to call them bailouts, but that's the Bush Administration. When you give a company a huge loan in return for worthless stock as assets, then it's a bailout) - the two large mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, regional bank IndyMac, and now AIG Insurance, the world's largest insurance agency.
The fact that the credit crunch was able to topple into other markets is because of de-regulation in the 1990s by the Republican congress that allowed insurance, banks, investments, etc. to mingle their money. So now a threat to one of them is a threat to all of them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but the way that all regulation was removed was. So laisse-faire economic goals have pretty much failed. One would argue that this is a natural adjustment to the bad loans given out by these companies, but if it causes a ripple effect (which it is causing), it may take a lot of innocent victims down with it.
It's time for an economy talk, folks.
As many people who watch the markets may know, 2 days ago two MAJOR banks failed. Lehman Brothers, a major investment bank, filed for bankruptcy; Merrill-Lynch, another large investment bank, was sold to the Bank of America who takes on all its assets and bad debts. This brings the total to four failed medium-to-major banks (3 of which have been major) in the credit crunch. However, it gets more interesting. The US Government has issued huge bailouts to several companies (the Bush Administration refuses to call them bailouts, but that's the Bush Administration. When you give a company a huge loan in return for worthless stock as assets, then it's a bailout) - the two large mortgage lenders Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, regional bank IndyMac, and now AIG Insurance, the world's largest insurance agency.
The fact that the credit crunch was able to topple into other markets is because of de-regulation in the 1990s by the Republican congress that allowed insurance, banks, investments, etc. to mingle their money. So now a threat to one of them is a threat to all of them. I'm not saying this is a bad thing, but the way that all regulation was removed was. So laisse-faire economic goals have pretty much failed. One would argue that this is a natural adjustment to the bad loans given out by these companies, but if it causes a ripple effect (which it is causing), it may take a lot of innocent victims down with it.
Forostar
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I'm sorry, Foro. I was going to finish my thought, but I had to submit that before I lost my computer's stability due to an issue I was having.
This comes down to McCain vs. Obama, as all things in the USA do. Obama's spent the day so far railing against the takeover of AIG, saying that taxpayers shouldn't be rewarding bad practises with good money, and that the relief cash should go to the affected families. McCain (who supported the de-regulation of the market in the 1990s) is saying that the markets need to be more strongly regulated. So, when it comes to financial matters, it appears this will affect the US election. One effect it has had is to get Sarah Palin out of the news for now, and shifts the focus back to the issues rather than on the candidates and whether or not they are qualified, good, old, young, male, female, etc, and back to what the candidates have to say about the issues.
I'm sorry, Foro. I was going to finish my thought, but I had to submit that before I lost my computer's stability due to an issue I was having.
This comes down to McCain vs. Obama, as all things in the USA do. Obama's spent the day so far railing against the takeover of AIG, saying that taxpayers shouldn't be rewarding bad practises with good money, and that the relief cash should go to the affected families. McCain (who supported the de-regulation of the market in the 1990s) is saying that the markets need to be more strongly regulated. So, when it comes to financial matters, it appears this will affect the US election. One effect it has had is to get Sarah Palin out of the news for now, and shifts the focus back to the issues rather than on the candidates and whether or not they are qualified, good, old, young, male, female, etc, and back to what the candidates have to say about the issues.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I'm gonna reply here, since the other thread is older.
I agree, regulation needs to take place. It is sad that a 158 year old company did fail. I will mostly blame them (Lehman Bros) for the mistakes there. However, they are in their situation for a few reasons, 1) is that the real estate market took a huge dive on them, and their assets fell to far below their liabilities to stay solvent. The second reason, is that many of the loans that went bad on them weren't, exactly, their fault. There are many companies out there that 'bundle' mortgage loans, and give them a rating, similar to a bond. Some of these companies were over inflating the ratings, and they basically fucked the banks that they sold the loans to.
I think, however, we have actually hit the bottom of this market/recession. Housing will shortly be on the rise again. The hurricane that hit will aid in that; there are people in need of homes, and there are homes in need of people. It won't be quick, and it won't be perfect, but I think that you will see, probably by the middle of next summer, an increase in the housing market, and a bump in the economy.
As to the huge market 'crash'.. most people don't realize this, but it was almost strictly the 'financials' that took the plummet-- the rest of the DOW, or whomever else you look at didn't fair so poorly.
One other thing... there is talk that the FDIC doesn't have the assets to cover all the accounts that they have insured, so if a true 'bank run' happened, there could be trouble. I, however, don't think it will be a problem right now. Congress, however, needs to take a look at that weakness.
I'm gonna reply here, since the other thread is older.
I agree, regulation needs to take place. It is sad that a 158 year old company did fail. I will mostly blame them (Lehman Bros) for the mistakes there. However, they are in their situation for a few reasons, 1) is that the real estate market took a huge dive on them, and their assets fell to far below their liabilities to stay solvent. The second reason, is that many of the loans that went bad on them weren't, exactly, their fault. There are many companies out there that 'bundle' mortgage loans, and give them a rating, similar to a bond. Some of these companies were over inflating the ratings, and they basically fucked the banks that they sold the loans to.
I think, however, we have actually hit the bottom of this market/recession. Housing will shortly be on the rise again. The hurricane that hit will aid in that; there are people in need of homes, and there are homes in need of people. It won't be quick, and it won't be perfect, but I think that you will see, probably by the middle of next summer, an increase in the housing market, and a bump in the economy.
As to the huge market 'crash'.. most people don't realize this, but it was almost strictly the 'financials' that took the plummet-- the rest of the DOW, or whomever else you look at didn't fair so poorly.
One other thing... there is talk that the FDIC doesn't have the assets to cover all the accounts that they have insured, so if a true 'bank run' happened, there could be trouble. I, however, don't think it will be a problem right now. Congress, however, needs to take a look at that weakness.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Well, to be completely honest with you, I'm not sure how the fall/rise in the US market will affect the rest of the world. I'm sure the strenght (or weakness) of the US market will drive, in part, how the rest of the world is affected-- I don't know to what extent.
I should have replied more to the regulation application. Back when the crash of '29 happened, many regulations were put into place, to stop trades when the market fell a certain amount (I honestly can't remember it it was a dollar or percentage). Since then, the SEC decided that the market was strong enough to withstand drops like it felt then, and removed the regulations. However, since then, we have seen the drastic market drop in 2001, and the one a couple years ago, and the one yesterday. We have actually seen some worse falls, but the market does seem strong enough to withstand it We actually had a pretty bad few days in July, and even with this fall, we are up.
I'm of mixed minds about regulation, because it really does seem to strangle the market-- horrible things can happen, which is why diversification is so important. If we really start to regulate the market too much, I think it won't be as strong as a free moving market. No matter what happens, or who gets elected, by this time next year, IMO, I think we will be hailing that person as the 'economy savior', because it will be back, and it will be strong, but I don't believe it will matter which one is elected for that.
I do, however, believe that we need to be careful as to our faith in the FDIC. Accounts are 'insured' for up to 100k, but people really just don't understand what that means, and I don't think the gov't can really cover it if the bottom fell out of the banking market. In the end, we are going to be faced with fewer individual banking companies, but larger, stronger ones-- eventually.
Well, to be completely honest with you, I'm not sure how the fall/rise in the US market will affect the rest of the world. I'm sure the strenght (or weakness) of the US market will drive, in part, how the rest of the world is affected-- I don't know to what extent.
I should have replied more to the regulation application. Back when the crash of '29 happened, many regulations were put into place, to stop trades when the market fell a certain amount (I honestly can't remember it it was a dollar or percentage). Since then, the SEC decided that the market was strong enough to withstand drops like it felt then, and removed the regulations. However, since then, we have seen the drastic market drop in 2001, and the one a couple years ago, and the one yesterday. We have actually seen some worse falls, but the market does seem strong enough to withstand it We actually had a pretty bad few days in July, and even with this fall, we are up.
I'm of mixed minds about regulation, because it really does seem to strangle the market-- horrible things can happen, which is why diversification is so important. If we really start to regulate the market too much, I think it won't be as strong as a free moving market. No matter what happens, or who gets elected, by this time next year, IMO, I think we will be hailing that person as the 'economy savior', because it will be back, and it will be strong, but I don't believe it will matter which one is elected for that.
I do, however, believe that we need to be careful as to our faith in the FDIC. Accounts are 'insured' for up to 100k, but people really just don't understand what that means, and I don't think the gov't can really cover it if the bottom fell out of the banking market. In the end, we are going to be faced with fewer individual banking companies, but larger, stronger ones-- eventually.
Cornfed Hick
Ancient Mariner
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
Wasted seizes on an interesting point. Among the regulations adopted in the wake of the Great Depression were requirements that commercial banks could no longer be affiliated with investment banks. The idea was that we didn't want the risk-taking investment bankers to have access to grandma's savings accounts. In 1999, that regulation was lifted, and since then, a number of commercial banks have affiliated themselves with investment banks again. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen some mega-mergers (B of A acquiring Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase acquiring Bear Stearns, and now there is talk of Wachovia merging with Morgan Stanley). Indeed, were it not for these mergers, in which the banks (with some aid from the Fed) effectively bailed out the more troubled investment banks, the financial sector of the economy would probably be hit much, much harder. Ironically, the result of these mega-mergers is to partly undo what the New Deal banking regulations sought to accomplish, namely, separating savings accounts from the broker-dealers. The banks themselves will no doubt remain separate entities, and will continue to be heavily regulated. One wonders, however, whether the next crisis will be a failure of regulators to prevent the Wall Street wheeler-dealers from investing Grandma's retirement savings in complicated Russian debt swaps.
Turning back to the topic at hand, I haven't heard either presidential candidate demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of these issues. Obama says he wants regulations, but what does that mean? McCain's suggestion that the problem is solely the result of "greed" is overly simplistic and seems to be an indictment of the fundamental tenet of capitalism, which PRESUMES profit maximizing behavior. Yet, he may be on to something, as executives who get $100+ million bonuses or stock gains based on performance over a one- or two-year span may not be properly incentivized to maximize the long-term profitability of the firm. (To quote Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead.") Obama ridicules McCain, who at least admits he doesn't understand this stuff, for his proposal to get a bunch of sophisticated people to study the underlying causes and problems and recommend a regulatory structure. This does have a whiff of letting the fox guard the henhouse, but maybe it's not a bad idea. I think that the financial guys are going to understand where they went wrong better than the junior Senator from Illinois. Apart from generally understanding that these banks invested too heavily in bad loans, I have not heard any explanation as to exactly why and how the market failed to avoid this problem or what could have been done to prevent it. Anybody with a mutual fund knows that diversifying your portfolio is important, but even with diverse investments, the Wall Street firms didn't realize that they were so overextended in these risky mortgage investments that, if the bottom dropped out, they'd go bankrupt. [EDIT: If they did realize this, and took the risk anyway, then why the fuck is the government bailing them out?] If they couldn't figure it out, I'm not sure a bureaucrat could have figured it out.
Wasted seizes on an interesting point. Among the regulations adopted in the wake of the Great Depression were requirements that commercial banks could no longer be affiliated with investment banks. The idea was that we didn't want the risk-taking investment bankers to have access to grandma's savings accounts. In 1999, that regulation was lifted, and since then, a number of commercial banks have affiliated themselves with investment banks again. In the last couple of weeks, we have seen some mega-mergers (B of A acquiring Merrill Lynch, JPMorgan Chase acquiring Bear Stearns, and now there is talk of Wachovia merging with Morgan Stanley). Indeed, were it not for these mergers, in which the banks (with some aid from the Fed) effectively bailed out the more troubled investment banks, the financial sector of the economy would probably be hit much, much harder. Ironically, the result of these mega-mergers is to partly undo what the New Deal banking regulations sought to accomplish, namely, separating savings accounts from the broker-dealers. The banks themselves will no doubt remain separate entities, and will continue to be heavily regulated. One wonders, however, whether the next crisis will be a failure of regulators to prevent the Wall Street wheeler-dealers from investing Grandma's retirement savings in complicated Russian debt swaps.
Turning back to the topic at hand, I haven't heard either presidential candidate demonstrate even a rudimentary understanding of these issues. Obama says he wants regulations, but what does that mean? McCain's suggestion that the problem is solely the result of "greed" is overly simplistic and seems to be an indictment of the fundamental tenet of capitalism, which PRESUMES profit maximizing behavior. Yet, he may be on to something, as executives who get $100+ million bonuses or stock gains based on performance over a one- or two-year span may not be properly incentivized to maximize the long-term profitability of the firm. (To quote Keynes, "In the long run, we're all dead.") Obama ridicules McCain, who at least admits he doesn't understand this stuff, for his proposal to get a bunch of sophisticated people to study the underlying causes and problems and recommend a regulatory structure. This does have a whiff of letting the fox guard the henhouse, but maybe it's not a bad idea. I think that the financial guys are going to understand where they went wrong better than the junior Senator from Illinois. Apart from generally understanding that these banks invested too heavily in bad loans, I have not heard any explanation as to exactly why and how the market failed to avoid this problem or what could have been done to prevent it. Anybody with a mutual fund knows that diversifying your portfolio is important, but even with diverse investments, the Wall Street firms didn't realize that they were so overextended in these risky mortgage investments that, if the bottom dropped out, they'd go bankrupt. [EDIT: If they did realize this, and took the risk anyway, then why the fuck is the government bailing them out?] If they couldn't figure it out, I'm not sure a bureaucrat could have figured it out.
Re: USA Elections: Candidates Comparison
I think that both McCain and Obama are smart enough to surround themselves with good economic people.
Oh, wait. McCain's senior economic adviser is Carly Fiorina, who cost HP millions of dollars. And Obama has chosen former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives for his economic advisers. So, let's be honest. Neither of them know much and haven't done too much to surround themselves with good people. I will say that Obama is known to take advice from Warren Buffett from time to time, and I think he knows a fair bit about the economy, being the world's richest man and all.
However, we won't really know who is at fault here till we look at the men and women responsible as CEOs, and such. Did they think they were acting for the best of their company or the best for themselves in the shortest term? I tend to believe that companies should be allowed to fail in general. However, with the interrelations between insurance, securities, and banking, I am unsure. I'm not an econ major by any way shape and form, but my rudimentary understanding of economics suggests that letting those three industries mingle will mean a stronger economy when things are good but one that is more vulnerable to collapse. I guess what I mean is that...if this housing bubble had occurred and insurance companies weren't allowed to fuck with mortgages, then wouldn't AIG have been fine when the bubble popped?
In fact, given the way that mortgages have been packaged of late and sold as, basically, an investment, without the de-regulation of the industries, wouldn't central banks still be on the hook for these mortgages, and wouldn't the banks that created the mortgages have been more careful since any loss/success was in their pockets instead of just selling the mortgages off to the highest bidder?
I think that both McCain and Obama are smart enough to surround themselves with good economic people.
Oh, wait. McCain's senior economic adviser is Carly Fiorina, who cost HP millions of dollars. And Obama has chosen former Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac executives for his economic advisers. So, let's be honest. Neither of them know much and haven't done too much to surround themselves with good people. I will say that Obama is known to take advice from Warren Buffett from time to time, and I think he knows a fair bit about the economy, being the world's richest man and all.
However, we won't really know who is at fault here till we look at the men and women responsible as CEOs, and such. Did they think they were acting for the best of their company or the best for themselves in the shortest term? I tend to believe that companies should be allowed to fail in general. However, with the interrelations between insurance, securities, and banking, I am unsure. I'm not an econ major by any way shape and form, but my rudimentary understanding of economics suggests that letting those three industries mingle will mean a stronger economy when things are good but one that is more vulnerable to collapse. I guess what I mean is that...if this housing bubble had occurred and insurance companies weren't allowed to fuck with mortgages, then wouldn't AIG have been fine when the bubble popped?
In fact, given the way that mortgages have been packaged of late and sold as, basically, an investment, without the de-regulation of the industries, wouldn't central banks still be on the hook for these mortgages, and wouldn't the banks that created the mortgages have been more careful since any loss/success was in their pockets instead of just selling the mortgages off to the highest bidder?